ARTICLE

Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts in the Greater Horn of Africa

Marie-Ange Baudoin • Tsegay Wolde-Georgis

� The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract This article assesses the current state of disaster

risk reduction (DRR) in the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA),

and focuses on interventions and policies to mitigate hy-

drometeorological risks. The research analyzes, as main

case study, the program ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and

Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’ funded by

the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID

OFDA) in the early 2000 that targeted risk preparedness.

The research method combines a desk review of relevant

documents and research papers with surveys and interviews

directed to key proponents of DRR across the GHA. Re-

sults highlight current strengths and weaknesses in the way

DRR is implemented in the GHA. Significant improve-

ments in the climate-forecasting capabilities in the GHA

since the 2000s are acknowledged, but the practice of DRR

remains technology driven and impacts on the ground are

limited. The key findings highlight the significant com-

munication gaps that exist between the producers of cli-

mate information and their end users, the communities at

risk. The article urges the establishment of bridges that

connect climate experts, policymakers, and representatives

of the local communities, and for the implementation of a

feedback loop from forecast users to their producers, in

order to strengthen risk resilience across the GHA.

Keywords Climate change � Disaster risk

management � Greater Horn of

Africa � Hydrometeorological hazards � Lessons

learned � Sub-Saharan Africa

1 Introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in general, and the greater Horn of

Africa in particular, is one of the most disaster-prone regions

of the world (IPCC 2007, 2012). Despite significant im-

provements in the prediction of hydrometeorological (HM)

hazard (Hellmuth et al. 2007; Bailey 2013), many challenges

remain to effectively mitigate impacts on society. As such, in

2013, Bailey pointed out: ‘‘Famine early warning systems

have a good track record of predicting food crises but a poor

track record of triggering early action’’ (Bailey 2013, p. 9).

This quote can be applied to the 2010 droughts that

affected the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA). Despite the

clear warnings of food shortage risks disseminated to

African governments and to the international community

months in advance, most interventions and support for

impacted populations took place after the consequences of

the droughts were felt. The response delay resulted in the

displacement of millions, increased malnutrition, and

sometimes death (UNISDR 2012). This kind of disaster

risks is expected to increase in the future due to climate

change, whose impacts are likely to heighten the severity

and occurrence of extreme HM events, such as droughts

and floods (Stern 2007, p. 76; IPCC 2007, 2012). Conse-

quences in GHA in particular will include negative shocks

on food security, on the recent progress made in economic

development, and on overall poverty reduction efforts

(World Bank 2012, 2013).

In the context of a changing climate, development aid

agencies are seeking to improve their interventions in the field

of disaster risk reduction (DRR) in Africa. Improvements are

all the more important because of costly recurring disaster

recovery measures in the same locations (for example, in

Kenya) in the context of a stagnation of international fund for

development aid (Ferris and Petz 2012). To address these

M.-A. Baudoin (&) � T. Wolde-Georgis

Consortium for Capacity Building, Institute of Arctic and Alpine

Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado, Boulder,

CO 80309-0450, USA

e-mail: marieange007@gmail.com

123

Int J Disaster Risk Sci www.ijdrs.com

DOI 10.1007/s13753-015-0041-x www.springer.com/13753

challenges, organizations involved in DRR will have to be

more efficient and cost-effective. Since the early 2000s, major

bilateral and multilateral agencies have endorsed a shift from

investing most resources in disaster response, relief, and re-

covery to enhancing risk predictions, preparedness, and

mitigation (UNISDR 2012; USAID 2012). This shift has also

been promoted, earlier, in the development and risk literature

(Holloway 2003; Vermaak and van Niekerk 2004). Similarly,

recognizing the high vulnerability of their continent to cli-

mate-related hazards and climate change, African leaders

have also invested resources in forecasting technologies

(Ogallo et al. 2008).

Based on interviews and a desk review of project

documents and scientific research, this article assesses the

current strengths and weaknesses in implementing DRR

strategies in the GHA. This region comprises the African

Horn and the Great Lake region. The study is conducted in

light of the support provided through a major DRR pro-

gram called ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and Risk Re-

duction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’ applied in the

region between 2001 and 2005, funded by the Office of

U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID OFDA), and

implemented with support of international institutions with

relevant expertise in the field of hydrometeorological risk

prediction. Recent enhancements of risk preparedness,

endorsed by African states after this program was com-

pleted, are also considered in the study.

The GHA has been affected by many hydrometeorological

hazards in the past; thus, many scholars have studied success

and failure in managing such events in order to highlight

‘‘lessons learned’’ for future DRR interventions (Glantz et al.

1997; Glantz 2000; Hellmuth et al. 2007). In this article, we

evaluate whether an increased focus on risk predictions and

preparedness, confirmed in the literature and in strategic

documents from agencies working in the field of DRR, has

effectively contributed to reduce impacts of hydrometeoro-

logical risks on society in the GHA. The results acknowledge

strengths and weaknesses about DRR activities, as well as

opportunities to foster this practice in the GHA. These find-

ings are also documented and supported by other studies

(Glantz 2000; Hellmuth et al. 2007; World Bank 2010;

UNISDR 2012), which suggest that a lesson is not learned

until it is applied. The article concludes with a set of lessons

relevant for aid agencies and for African governments seeking

to mitigate future impacts of hydrometeorological hazards on

society, and to strengthen livelihood resilience to a changing

climate.

2 Context, Material, and Methods

This section aims to underline the impacts of hy-

drometeorological hazard in Sub-Saharan Africa and, more

precisely, in the GHA. As the context and disaster-related

issues are described, the needs for acute and effective DRR

interventions are identified. Then, the research approach

and methods for data collection, as well as the size of the

data set used in this study, are explained.

2.1 Context and Problems

The number of natural disasters in SSA has increased over

the last four decades, resulting in a growing number of

victims, especially located in the African Horn (Fig. 1)

(Nicholson 2014). In this region people are extremely

vulnerable to severe drought events, which are more fre-

quent and more destructive than any other types of hazard

(Fig. 1). For instance, there have been associations be-

tween the chronologies of El Nino episode and drought in

Ethiopia (Wolde-Georgis 1997). In addition to a high ex-

position to extreme events, impacts in SSA are heightened

by weak disaster risk management capacities, and a high

vulnerability among the population (Hellmuth et al. 2007).

Risk vulnerability is linked to inadequate human, eco-

nomic, and infrastructure development, coupled with high

population growth, increasing urbanization, and dangerous

locations for settlement (UNECA 2011). Hydrometeoro-

logical hazards particularly affect livelihood conditions and

economic development in rural areas, as they rely on rain

fed agriculture. This economic and subsistence activity is

extremely sensitive to unreliable and variable rainfall pat-

terns characterizing this region (Hansen et al. 2011). In this

specific context, hazards such as droughts and floods often

turn into disasters, mainly affecting poor vulnerable com-

munities, and significantly slowing down development and

economic gains (World Bank 2012). This study focuses on

the GHA (Fig. 2), located in the northeastern quadrant of

SSA. The region comprises the following countries: Bu-

rundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Soma-

lia, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda.

To mitigate natural hazard impacts in this region, in-

ternational aid agencies have developed and implemented

DRR programs for decades. Since the early 2000s, pro-

grams that specifically targeted HM hazards have con-

tributed to improvement in the prediction of such events

over the subcontinent (Hellmuth et al. 2007; Glantz and

Baudoin 2014). But significant problems remain, since in

2011 Clark (from the United Nations Development Pro-

gramme) declared: ‘‘In 2011 alone [in the world], almost

30,000 people were killed in 302 disasters, and 206 million

people were affected, including 106 million by floods, and

60 million by drought—mainly in the Horn of Africa’’

(Clark 2012).

Without improvements in the practice of DRR, the GHA

will be increasingly affected by the impacts of HM events.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Baudoin and Wolde-Georgis. Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts in the Greater Horn of Africa

123

Fig. 1 Number of people affected by droughts in the African Horn, between 1970 and 2010. Source IFPRI (n.d.)

Fig. 2 The Greater Horn of

Africa

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

123

Change (IPCC), climate change in SSA will likely result in

increased hydrological stresses (expected as early as 2020);

intensified extreme events (storms, dry spells, and so on);

modified precipitation patterns; and heightened rainfall

variability (IPCC 2007). The location and intensity of these

anticipated climate change impacts remain difficult to

predict, especially at the local level (UNECA 2011). In

order to better forecast HM risks, and prepare for their

impacts, the Intergovernmental Authority on Develop-

ment’s Climate Prediction and Applications Center

(ICPAC—http://www.icpac.net/) was established in

Nairobi in 1989 (formerly named Drought Monitoring

Center (DMC) for the Greater Horn of Africa). This cli-

mate science center plays a key role in the GHA, training

hydrometeorologists from across the region, and working

to improve the accuracy of seasonal forecasts.

2.2 Strengths and Weaknesses in the Practice of DRR

An important set of lessons to improve the practice of DRR

in sub-Saharan Africa can be found through a review of

relevant literature (Glantz 2000; Hellmuth et al. 2007;

Glantz and Baudoin 2014). A recurrent observation in this

region, documented through interviews conducted for this

study, is the existing limits in forecasting capacities, which

are due to incomplete or unavailable historical, long-term

climatic data as well as a lack of up-to-date technologies

and experienced staff among climate institutions (Hellmuth

et al. 2007; Baudoin et al. 2014). In fact, most of the cli-

mate information that is monitored to predict HM risks in

SSA is actually processed in international and foreign

centers (Baudoin 2012; Glantz and Baudoin 2014).

Hellmuth et al. (2007) and Holloway et al. (2010) also

underline difficulties in disseminating risk information to

the vulnerable communities in SSA. This is especially true

in remote areas where communication facilities are often

missing, but not only. Communication with local African

communities is often hampered by the complex termi-

nology used to release forecasts and risk warnings, the lack

of communication infrastructure, and, perhaps, a lack of

understanding of modern scientific meteorology among

farmers (Shah et al. 2012). Trust issues between climate

scientists and local communities, which are the end users

of the forecasts, can also affect the effectiveness of risk

alerts, as pointed out by Archer (2003), Hansen et al.

(2011), and Baudoin et al. (2014).

Poverty is another barrier. Even if perfect information is

transmitted to farmers, their responses are often con-

strained by a lack of adequate resources (material or fi-

nancial). Moreover, the absence of social security nets,

such as savings and risk insurance, in many African rural

communities, limit farmers’ readiness to try new practices

in responses to climate-related risks (Lallau 2008).

Buchanan-Smith et al. (1994) emphasized that the pre-

vention of famine in SSA has not improved since the dis-

asters of the 1980s, despite better predictive capacity in the

Sahel and the Horn of Africa. Regardless of accuracy, in-

formation cannot be eaten by famine-inflicted communi-

ties. Regrettably, a similar assessment appeared in Bailey’s

(2013) report on famine in Africa, published 20 years later.

Another limit to effective risk management in SSA is a

lack of preparedness planning and disaster response

strategies among most governments (UNISDR 2012); such

plans are necessary to apply timely responses to imminent

disaster threats. In reality, governments tend to rely on

support from the international community to face, or re-

cover from, natural hazards. Support from the international

community is often delayed by administrative processes

within aid agencies, or by disaster diplomacy in interna-

tional relations. Consequently, international help often

takes place after a disaster has occurred, in the form of

relief and recovery support (Holloway 2003; Vermaak and

van Niekerk 2004; Holloway and Roomaney 2008; Hol-

loway et al. 2010). Such relief provision, although neces-

sary, does not contribute to efforts that build a country’s

capacities to manage future disaster risks. In fact, one

might say that they create a certain dependency of the

recipient countries towards international aid in time of

disaster.

Recognizing these multiple limits to DRR, major aid

agencies have endorsed a shift from focusing on disaster

relief to enhancing risk preparedness and prevention. This

shift also aims to reduce costly spending in recovery sup-

port and to prepare better for the expected rise of HM

hazards in the context of climate change (USAID 2012).

Increased attention given to risk preparedness in DRR

programs has emerged in the early 2000s, with a strong

emphasis on enhancing climate forecasting capacity.

2.3 Methodology, Scope, and Limits

An evaluation of DRR in the GHA was conducted in light

of the support provided by OFDA’s DRR program: ‘‘Re-

gional Climate Prediction and Risk Reduction in the

Greater Horn of Africa’’ implemented across the region at

the end of 2001. This program, and its site of implemen-

tation, constitute our case study for this research. The re-

search method combines a desk review of relevant

documents, including scientific articles on DRR, official

documents about hazard management in SSA, and reports

from development aid agencies working in the field of

DRR in the region. Results were complemented with

Baudoin and Wolde-Georgis. Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts in the Greater Horn of Africa

123

qualitative data collected through surveys and interviews

conducted during a short field trip in Nairobi, Kenya, in

February 2013.

Nairobi was selected as an investigation site because it

hosts the ICPAC and most of the project investigators (PIs)

involved in the program ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and

Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’ are still

located there, especially within ICPAC. Therefore, this site

was deemed as a fertile area in which to gather data about

the implementation of this DRR program and its long-term

impacts and to evaluate the current role and activities led

by ICPAC in the GHA. Due to time and resource con-

straints, we were not able to conduct relevant field inves-

tigations in other member countries of the GHA. Moreover,

due to the short duration of our stay in Kenya, the inves-

tigation focused on Nairobi and its surroundings. It should,

however, be noted that Nairobi does not necessarily rep-

resent the whole region in terms of capacities to forecast

hazards’ risks and to implement DRR activities, due to its

particularities of hosting ICPAC, an important regional

climate center and a key actor in the implementation of the

‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and Risk Reduction in the

Greater Horn of Africa’’ program.

The data base of this study is comprised of eight written

surveys from the National Hydrometeorological Services

(NHMSs) located in the GHA; and 13 semi-oriented indi-

vidual interviews conducted in Nairobi, Kenya, with: four

PIs involved in the ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and Risk

Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’ program, in-

cluding two members of ICPAC, one member of the In-

ternational Research Institute for Climate and Society

(IRI), and a professor at the University of Nairobi; one

member of the Kenyan Meteorological Department

(KMD); a project manager working in the NGO One Acre

Fund; a representative of the Ministry of Arid land, Kenya;

and six farmers living in the region of Nairobi. Data col-

lection and analysis are based on qualitative approach.

The written surveys were distributed hand to hand

among NHMS’ representatives who were present for a

training session held in ICPAC, Nairobi, at the time of our

field visit in February 2013. In addition, we sent the survey

through email to the NHMSs who had not sent represen-

tatives to the training session. We received response from

respondents in eight services. Questions in the surveys

were divided into two main topics:

A first theme focused on the conception, implementa-

tion, and outcomes of the ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction

and Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’ pro-

gram. Questions included the respondent’s knowledge/

awareness of the assessed program; effectiveness of this

program, from his/her point of view; and progress made in

climate monitoring activities after the program ended. The

goal was to shed light on the program’s effective contri-

bution to improved HM risk management in the GHA.

A second set of questions focused on ICPAC and the

regional forecasts regularly released in the GHA. Questions

included: current climate modelling support provided by

ICPAC, and the effectiveness of this support, according to

the respondents; current level of coordination and com-

munication among NHMSs; level of communication with

potential forecast users in the ministries and in civil soci-

ety; and suggestions to improve ICPAC’s current activities

to liaise better with forecast users, and to foster current

DRR activities in each country. The purpose was to assess

the quality and usefulness of the climate products produced

with ICPAC support, and disseminated across the GHA

two or three times a year.

Individual interviews with four project PIs in the pro-

gram ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and Risk Reduction in

the Greater Horn of Africa’’ served to collect information

on its conception and implementation and on the applica-

tion of the demonstration activities. This was critical to

assess challenges and successes in implementing pilot ac-

tivities and to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the

DRR program. An individual interview with a me-

teorologist from KMD who regularly participate in the

GHA Climate Outlook Forums (COFs) helped assessing

the organization of these forums, including the type of

invited participants and the major topics of the discussions.

Interviews with a member of the One Acre Fund, a

representative of the Kenyan Ministry of Arid land, and

farmers were aimed to extract qualitative information from

actual and potential users of climate forecasts. For instance,

we collected data on the current participation of repre-

sentatives from the Ministry of Arid Land in COFs, as well

as the actual use of climate forecasts by this Ministry.

Subsequent interviews with a member of the local NGO

One Acre Fund and with farmers helped complete the in-

formation regarding actual uses of climate forecasts to

mitigate disasters’ impacts on the ground, especially in the

field of agriculture. Farmers were selected by a research

associate, based in Nairobi, on a random basis. Unfortu-

nately, due to a lack of time and opportunities to travel to

more distant sites, other communities could not be studied.

The aim of the research was to evaluate disaster risk

management in the GHA as of today, using literature and

evaluating OFDA’s program ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction

and Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’, which

served as a case study to complement data from the lit-

erature. A significant limit to the study was the difficulty

encountered in gaining access to key information related to

OFDA’s program, which was completed in 2005. Some

documents were missing; for example, no full evaluation of

the program had been conducted when the project ended.

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

123

Memory fades as time elapses, and some interviewees from

the NHMSs had little memory of the program’s specifics,

while others had been recently hired by the meteorological

service. Finally, on-site interviews were only conducted in

Kenya due to time and resource constraints, which limits

the scope of some results to this particular country. Com-

paring our findings with other evaluations of DRR in SSA

was necessary to confirm the main outcomes.

3 Results: Disaster Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn

of Africa

This section focuses on the conception and implementation

of the program ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and Risk

Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’ funded by OFDA

between 2001 and 2005 in the GHA. More specifically, it

assesses implemented activities and their impacts, with a

long-term perspective. We focus on what was gained

through this program, in terms of improved DRR practice

in the GHA, what were the major problems during the

implementation, and what are the remaining challenges—

in light of this program’s successes and weaknesses.

3.1 Impacts of the Disaster Risk Reduction Program

At the end of 2001, OFDA’s program ‘‘Regional Climate

Prediction and Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn of

Africa’’ was implemented across the GHA. Focusing on

risk preparedness, this program’s goal was to improve the

prediction of hydrometeorological hazards, and mitigate

their impacts on society. Spread over 3 years (until early

2005), the program received technical and technological

support from several international research and climate-

based centers. ICPAC was the key implementing agency.

The main objective of this program was: ‘‘[…] to improve

monitoring, prediction and applications for early warning

of climatic hazard events in support of disaster reduction

and other regional sustainable development objectives’’

(IRI 2001).

Reducing the impact of hydrometeorological hazards

such as droughts and floods was at the core of this initia-

tive. At the regional level, activities to enhance climate

monitoring essentially focused on ICPAC, strengthening its

key position as a regional climate platform in the GHA. In

contrast, NHMS staff and collaborators were trained to

strengthen national forecasting capacities within the GHA.

Training sessions were organized by ICPAC staff and held

in its office in Nairobi, which benefited from technological

reinforcement throughout the ‘‘Regional Climate Predic-

tion and Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa’’

program. For instance, ICPAC received computers to

downscale national climate data, as well as technical

support from IRI’s collaborators. ICPAC was also in

charge of the regular organization of the GHA COFs with

support from OFDA and the IRI. Held twice a year, these

forums prepared the groundwork for the release of regional

seasonal climate outlooks before the main rainfall seasons

(in August and February). Through this program, COFs

were also used as vehicles to inform users outside of the

climate field, for example, stakeholders in climate-sensitive

sectors such as agriculture, water management, and health,

about the potential implications of seasonal forecasts for

their area of activity. Finally, at the local level, several

demonstration activities were developed and applied to

demonstrate the utility of integrating relevant climate in-

formation into the decision-making process.

A review of the program’s documentation, combined

with interviews and surveys sent to key informants, served

to confirm a clear strengthening of ICPAC’s position as a

regional climate center in the GHA throughout the duration

of the program ‘‘Regional Climate Prediction and Risk

Reduction in the Greater Horn of Africa.’’ This was

achieved especially because of technology transfers and

training sessions that enhanced ICPAC’s staff forecasting

capacities and skills. For instance, ICPAC received a

‘‘super computer’’ to analyze climate data and produce

seasonal climate outlooks and selected members of the

staff were trained abroad at international climate centers.

During the program, ICPAC also received support orga-

nizing capacity-building sessions to train staff of the

NHMSs; this platform possesses equipment to model re-

gional and national seasonal forecasts.

With the goal to better link climate experts and stake-

holders, capacity-building workshops were held as parallel

events to the COFs during the program; representatives of

climate sensitive sectors (users) were invited to attend.

They were trained to better understand climate predic-

tions—including the probability levels—and the potential

risks affecting their specific sectors. According to inter-

views with ICPAC’s staff, a majority of the invited users

belonged to ministries and international nongovernmental

organizations (such as the Red Cross), while smaller orga-

nizations, for example, farmers’ associations, were absent.

The fact that these local entities were not invited suggests a

stronger focus of COFs’ organizers on larger international

institutions, which also provide fund and technical support

to ICPAC. Yet, COFs’ training sessions were designed to

enhance users’ capacities to develop and apply relevant

policies and strategies to reduce disaster risks in their

country. It should be noted that no follow up mechanisms

were established to evaluate how the training session in-

fluenced concrete action and policy on the ground.

The main outcome of COFs was a regional seasonal

climate outlook that was released twice a year, in time

before the main rainfall seasons in most parts of the GHA.

Baudoin and Wolde-Georgis. Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts in the Greater Horn of Africa

123

Preparation of the climate outlook was monitored at

ICPAC during the program, with support from interna-

tional climate institutes. The regional outlook was built

using climate data collected by the NHMSs. The NHMSs

were then responsible for disseminating the forecasts at the

national level, using communication media such as radio,

TV, and newspaper. The climate outlooks were regional in

nature and contained an advisory to users not to use the

information as such, at national level, but to contact their

respective NHMS for specific guidance.

Pilot projects were implemented at a local scale in dif-

ferent climate-sensitive sectors by ICPAC in partnership

with representatives from those sectors. Among the pilot

activities were: (1) the development of a user-friendly

reservoir management decision support tool; (2) the use of

climate information for farm level decision making; (3) the

development of a climate-based food security early warn-

ing system; and (4) a Rift Valley fever outbreak early

warning model. According to ICPAC’s staff and other in-

terviewees familiar with OFDA’s pilot projects, at the end

of the program only one of the pilot projects was close to

completion. The three other projects needed further data,

research, and investments to provide concrete outcomes or

to validate climate-impacts models.

3.2 Modeling Climate Forecasts Today

When OFDA program’s funding ended early 2005, im-

plementation of the pilot projects stopped. However, other

sources for technical and financial support contributed to

enhance DRR activities in the GHA. Interviews with sev-

eral members of ICPAC indicated that some funding and

technical support was obtained from intergovernmental

institutions and climate institutes, which helped ICPAC

maintain and improve its forecasting activities up until the

present. Thus ICPAC remains the main climate research

center in the GHA, as well as a major regional platform

where climate experts meet, are trained, and have access to

the newest forecasting technologies and equipment to

model their national seasonal forecasts.

The overall improved quality (since 2000) of the re-

gional forecasts is recognized by all NHMSs interviewed

for this study, including by representatives who were not

personally involved in the program ‘‘Regional Climate

Prediction and Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn of

Africa’’ (Table 1). Table 1 also shows the high level of

participation in the COFs among NHMSs. Recently (in

2011), a third annual meeting was established to better

reflect the climate diversity among ICPAC’s member

states. Interviews with the representatives of the NHMSs

also indicated that the third COF was required by ‘‘summer

rainfall’’ countries. The tropical and eastern countries of

the GHA have rainfall seasons between September and

October, and between February to April, while others re-

ceive their rainfall between June and September (summer

rainfalls). Until 2011, COFs were held at the end of August

and beginning of February which was less relevant for

countries depending on summer rainfall. A third annual

COF is now routinely organized to release seasonal pre-

dictions in June. This session, however, does not yet pro-

vide the relevant workshops and training on forecast

interpretations for users.

3.3 Participation of Users in Forecasts’ Production

As recognized by most NHMSs, the gap between climate

scientists and users of the forecasts is significant. The

disconnection can be observed during the COFs, where

most attendees belong to climate institutions (ICPAC,

NHMSs, or international climate centers, for example, the

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)—see the COF

statement on http://icpac.net). Many interviews with po-

tential local COF participants confirm a lack of participa-

tion in the COFs by local actors such as small NGOs and

farmer’ groups. This is essentially due to a lack of

awareness about COFs’ timing and venue (local actors are

not informed about, nor invited to, these forums), which

continues to hamper local users’ participation to COFs,

even today. In addition, local actors often have limited

resources to participate (especially if a COF is held

abroad). Most COFs are perceived as events for climate

experts only, due to the high attendance from representa-

tives of this category, which can discourage participation

for groups working in other fields. The suggestion of a

continuous ignorance from ICPAC of actors at the local

level was confirmed by several interviewees.

In Kenya contacts between meteorologists and some

policymakers seem to be regular, based on a discussion

with a representative of the Ministry of Arid Land. Ac-

cording to the interviewee, the KMD regularly dis-

seminates climate information within concerned ministries

and their ministerial representatives frequently attend

COFs. But ministerial representatives are not involved in

the production of the seasonal outlooks, which is a process

led only by climate experts. The interview also indicates

that after each climate forecast COF ministries from cli-

mate-sensitive sectors in Kenya meet separately from

ICPAC at the national level in order to discuss their un-

derstanding of the implications of the seasonal predictions

on each climate-sensitive sector. It is unclear whether these

discussions effectively lead to the adoption of relevant

policy for DRR. Apparently a lack of financial resources

hinders the development and implementation of many

relevant measures to mitigate disaster risks.

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

123

3.4 Use of Forecast in Decision Making

The tangible use of seasonal forecasts to mitigate or pre-

vent critical hazard impacts at the national level also re-

mains unclear. Based on interviews with the NHMSs,

which agreed on the significant improvements of forecast

quality since 2000 (Table 1), barriers to a ‘‘real-life’’ use of

the forecasts include problems in forecast accuracy (for

example, there is a need to update the equipment and the

modeling techniques used by forecasters) and gaps in the

communication loop with potential users. Lack of feedback

from the users’ community to the forecasters was indicated

by some as impairing a complete evaluation of whether

forecasts are used (if at all) in the GHA (Table 2). On the

technical side, there is an ongoing need to improve forecast

downscaling techniques in order to build products that are

more accurate and reliable at the national and local levels,

which was also raised by several interviewees.

Attempts to enhance use of the forecasts for decision

making in the GHA were launched through several pilot

projects implemented as part of the program ‘‘Regional

Climate Prediction and Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn

of Africa.’’ But most pilot activities were not completed

when the program ended (IRI 2005). Interviews with sev-

eral key actors involved in these pilot projects highlighted

multiple issues affecting the execution of these local ini-

tiatives, during and after the program’s completion. This

information is compiled in Table 3. For instance, many

partners involved in demonstration activities such as ‘‘Food

Security Outlooks (FSO) for contingency planning in the

Greater Horn of Africa’’ and ‘‘Protecting pastoralist

livelihoods by protecting livestock trade between the GHA

and the Middle East through the control of Rift Valley

Fever (RVF)’’ were outside of the ‘‘climate sphere’’ (for

example, experts in agriculture or members of health de-

partments) and were consulted about, rather than involved

Table 1 Results from the surveys distributed to National Hydrometeorological Services in the Greater Horn of Africa

NHMSs (surveys’ respondents) Participation in

OFDA’s Program

Observed forecasts’

improvements (Since 2000s)

Received support

from ICPAC

COF’s regular

participation

Ethiopia Yes Yes Yes Yes

Uganda No Yes Yes Yes

Burundi Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sudan No Yes Yes Yes

South Sudan No N/A Yes Yes

Tanzania No Yes Yes Yes

Kenya No Yes Yes Yes

Rwanda Yes Yes Yes Yes

Results were collected through surveys submitted to representatives of the NHMSs. Note that South Soudan officially exists since 2011. The

recent creation of a meteorological center does not allow clear observation of forecast improvement. Eight NHMS representatives responded on:

their involvement in the reviewed DRR program; perceived improvements in seasonal climate predictions since the program was implemented;

support provided by ICPAC to model national forecasts; and their participation to the COFs

Table 2 Use of climate forecast surveys by NHMSs in the GHA

NHMSs Perceived forecasts’ utility in decision making at national level and needs to improve their usefulness

Ethiopia Not sure about utility—problems of quality: need for new modeling techniques and better

infrastructures to produce seasonal predictions

Uganda Sure about utility—but problems of quality: need to improve climate analysis techniques

Burundi Not sure about utility—problems of quality and communication with users: need to improve

climate modeling techniques ? need feedback from the user’s community

Sudan Sure about utility for some users—problems of communication and quality: forecast are difficult

to understand ? need to use more advanced climate model (for example, dynamic models)

South Sudan Sure about utility—problems of communication: users often do not understand forecasts

Tanzania Not sure about utility—problems of communication: users often do not understand forecasts

Kenya Not sure about utility—problems of quality: need to improve climate modeling techniques

Rwanda Sure about utility—but problems of communication: forecasts must be provided daily to users

Results were collected through surveys submitted to representatives of the NHMSs. Eight NHMSs representatives responded to questions on:

forecast concrete utility in the GHA and problems to address in order to improve forecast use as decision-making tools

Baudoin and Wolde-Georgis. Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts in the Greater Horn of Africa

123

in, the conception and implementation of the pilot projects.

Yet, these partners were actual users of the forecasts thus

the projects would have benefited from their inclusion at

the onset. This limited role for potential contributors and

users spread a general feeling of exclusion of nonclimate

experts from meaningful participation in decision making

in the pilot projects. In fact, the meteorologists were the

real drivers of all demonstration initiatives.

The case of the Tana River hydropower project is also

an interesting example illustrating how a lack of coordi-

nation and initial involvement of all relevant institutions

from the beginning of a project can compromise the im-

plementation of promising activities. This project was

significant for Kenya because it related to the generation of

hydropower energy, which is important for the country’s

economy and electricity supply. The project was, however,

never completed and contradictory explanations were

provided by interviewees, suggesting conflicts of interest

between meteorologists and experts in the energy sector,

lack of involvement of the nonclimate expert partners, and

reservations about sharing critical data among climate and

energy experts.

The exception is the Machacos pilot project on farm

level decision making that was completed after the end of

the OFDA project because the coordinator (PI) was com-

pletely involved and dedicated to the activities, and was

able to secure funding from other donors, such as the

European Union (EU).

3.5 Communication Among Climate Experts,

Stakeholders, and Local Users

Communication gaps seem to significantly hinder DRR

activities in the GHA. Interviews with NHMS staff and

with farmers indicate that communication infrastructure to

disseminate relevant climate information at the local level

is missing. There also is no training among climate-sensi-

tive communities (for example, farmers), on how to use

forecasts as decision-making support tools (Fig. 3). Fig-

ure 3 also shows that communication gaps include the use

Table 3 Interview results from key actors in the assessed DRR program pilot demonstration activities

Pilot projects implemented between 2002 and

2005

Achievements Current status Reason for current

status

Hydropower stabilization and flood risk

management in the Tana River Basin,

Kenya

Software to improve hydropower

production developed

Training of ICPAC experts

Consultation with representatives of

the energy sector (KenGen)

Project never completed

(software never used)

Lack of involvement of

relevant institutions

Lack of funds to

continue/conduct

remaining necessary

analysis

Flood livelihood impact assessment for

contingency planning in the Lower Tana

River Basin, Kenya

Streamflow model and flood risk

maps developed

Livelihood baselines and

contigency plans prepared

Findings published

Models and plans never

applied

Lack of funds to

implement results

Improving agricultural production through

farm-level decision making: the case of the

Eastern Province, Kenya

Results on how tailored information

for farmers can be used to identify

resource management decisions

Findings published by Ngugi et al.

(2011)

Project completed in District

of Machakos in Kenya with

other support when the

program ended

Project’s PI able to

secure funds to

complete activities in

Kenya

Food Security Outlooks (FSO) for

contingency planning in the Greater Horn

of Africa

FSO invited to COF

Climate experts acknowledging

opportunity to use their products

for concrete decision on the

agricultural sector

Weak relationship between

climate experts and food

specialists

Lack of funding

Very low involvement

of the user community

(the food security

community)

Lack of follow-up by

ICPAC

Protecting pastoralist livelihoods by

protecting livestock trade between the

GHA and the Middle East through the

control of Rift Valley Fever (RVF)

A prototype environmentally-based

RVF risk model neared

completion

Project never completed Departure of the project

coordinator when the

funding ended

Reluctance to cooperate

from countries not

involved at the onset

Questions were asked about the achievements, current status, and reasons for failure/success of each pilot activity

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

123

of complex terminology when seasonal climate outlooks

are disseminated after the COFs. For instance, the use of

probabilistic terms (for example, the probability of rain at a

‘‘normal’’, ‘‘below normal’’, or ‘‘above normal’’ level)

often is outside local experience and language. This is a

language barrier that clearly limits the understanding and

interpretation of forecasts, even by some highly educated

users. Nonetheless, information collected from the NHMSs

reveals a certain degree of awareness of communication

biases with respect to the local communities, and a degree

of willingness to address these issues.

Discussions with farmers in rural communities around

Nairobi confirmed and illustrated that the information

provided by the NHMSs’ representatives failed to connect

with local experience and perceived needs. Most farmers

are not familiar with meteorological terms; and many do

not have access to climate or weather information, because

they are located in remote areas and/or do not possess

communication devices (for example, TV or radio).

Moreover, trust issues towards forecasts were revealed,

because of past inaccuracies in climate predictions (which

essentially relates to misinterpretation of the probabilistic

language of forecasts), lack of interactions between farmers

and scientists, and existing local system of knowledge on

climate and seasonal patterns, whose relevance for decision

making (for instance, in agriculture) has been demonstrated

by Campbell (1999), Speranza et al. (2009), Archer (2003),

and Hansen et al. (2011), among others.

4 Discussions and Conclusions

This section discusses the main outcome of our study, with

the objective to highlight strengths and weaknesses, as well

as challenges in implementing DRR activities in the GHA.

We conclude by identifying lessons that are yet to be

learned and applied, in order to improve risk preparedness

and responses at the local level in the region—and more

widely, in countries affected by climate-related hazards.

4.1 Strengths, Weaknesses, and Opportunities

for Disaster Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn

of Africa

Results from this study highlight some of the main

strengths and weaknesses in the practice of DRR in the

GHA. These strengths and weaknesses can be related, to

some extent, to the way DRR is conceived and imple-

mented by international aid agencies, climate experts, and

national governments.

A long-term impact of OFDA’s program ‘‘Regional

Climate Prediction and Risk Reduction in the Greater Horn

of Africa’’ is reflected in the position ICPAC holds today. It

has remained the main climate center of the GHA, and its

role is critical in supporting training activities for hy-

drometeorologists of member countries, promoting re-

gional cooperation, and offering technical support to

downscale regional and national seasonal predictions. In

addition, the quality of climate predictions has significantly

improved over the past 15 years throughout the region

(Hellmuth et al. 2007). These DRR programs can be useful

to initiate significant progress in the field of HM risk

forecasting. But further improvements, especially in the

accuracy of local climate prediction, are still required

(Ngugi et al. 2011).

A concern that remains is how to reflect the diversity of

climate and seasonal patterns across the GHA. Although

ICPAC has recently launched a third annual COFs to re-

lease seasonal outlooks that match the needs of the

‘‘summer rainfall countries,’’ related training sessions for

Fig. 3 Improving decision

making based on the climate

forecasts of NHMSs in the

GHA. Note Results were

collected through surveys

submitted to representatives of

the NHMSs. Questions asked

were focused on what is needed

to improve forecasts’ utility in

decision making in the GHA;

surveyed respondents provided

more than one response

Baudoin and Wolde-Georgis. Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts in the Greater Horn of Africa

123

decision makers have yet to be organized. These sessions

are substantive and intended to enable users to use fore-

casts in decision making.

On this matter, the role of ICPAC as the primary climate

platform in the GHA is open to question, due to a high

seasonal diversity across the region. A critical need is to

produce more locally-accurate forecasts, and to provide

adequate support for forecast’s users in each specific cli-

mate zone. To fine tune climate forecasts linked to the

needs of local decisions makers, the establishment of the

decentralized antenna of local climate monitoring centers is

important. Creating climate platforms for each specific

agroecological zone would facilitate the collecting and

monitoring of local data. This decentralization would

contribute to production of more reliable and accurate

forecasts for each specific zone. Moreover, holding COFs

in each decentralized climate center, with a focus on one

specific agroecological system in the GHA, could be a

pathway to better address users’ needs in terms of climate

products that are relevant as decision-support tools.

Even precise and accurate forecasts by themselves are

not sufficient to reduce hazardous impacts on society

(Buchanan-Smith et al. 1994; Bailey 2013). This research

demonstrates a lack of concrete use of the climate infor-

mation, when released in its aggregated form after each

COF. To initiate concrete action and policy, forecasts could

be converted into comprehensive advisories based on the

real needs of decision makers at all levels. Producing such

‘‘usable science’’ (Glantz 2004) also implies creation of

feedback loops from the forecast users to the climate ex-

perts. Feedback loops would ensure that users’ needs are

integrated into the conception of climate outlooks (Basher

2006; Kelman and Glantz 2014). It would mean that

forecasts’ production is not driven by climate experts (as it

is today), but is conceived as a social activity that takes

root in local society (Holloway 2003; Basher 2006; Hol-

loway and Roomaney 2008; Glantz and Baudoin 2014;

Kelman and Glantz 2014).

Communication gaps between climate scientists and the

society are important barrier to release ‘‘user-friendly’’

climate products. Bridges needs to be built between the

forecasters and the population, and also between the fore-

casters and the policymakers. This is critical to enhance

risk preparedness among African governments. For in-

stance, many Sub-Saharan African governments are cur-

rently unprepared to respond in time to climate alerts

(UNISDR 2012). But building bridges among all relevant

partners to strengthen DRR is not an easy task, as

demonstrated by the pilot initiatives initiated in the DRR

program. The study reveals the significant challenges of

working successfully on issues that are multisectoral and

multinational. This highlights the need to involve, equally,

all partners—especially those outside of the ‘‘climate

science sphere’’—at the onset of a project to avoid ten-

sions. Capacity building for relevant partners is also nec-

essary and opportunities for training are present, for

instance through COFs. These forums could serve as a

vehicle to better connect all proponents (climate experts,

decision makers, and local representatives of the commu-

nities) and effectively apply a feedback loop among them.

Finally, DRR activities also need to take place at the

local level, where hazards hit. For instance, training local

advisers and representatives of local communities is critical

in order to increase their understanding of seasonal fore-

casts, and to foster their capacities to raise awareness

among their communities. The benefits of using relevant

climate information at the local level, for example for

agriculture, have been highlighted in many studies (Archer

2003; Hansen et al. 2011; Ngugi et al. 2011). A two-way

dialogue between climate experts and local communities

(or their representatives) should be launched to build trust

and respect. Trust could be gained, for instance, if existing

local knowledge and observations of climate and seasonal

patterns are perceived and used as valuable information for

the production of forecasts. After all, local villagers are

long-term witnesses of their environment and its changes

(Campbell 1999; Speranza et al. 2009; Baudoin et al.

2014). Other opportunities include improving communi-

cation means, for example, using cellphone to better dis-

seminate climate information and warnings in remote areas

where such devices are frequently used (Glantz and Bau-

doin 2014).

4.2 Final Words: Lessons from the Greater Horn

of Africa

Building linkages among climate scientists, decision

makers, and local communities is a key towards building a

more risk-resilient society. The following set of lessons,

extracted from this research, is proposed to contribute to

DRR in the GHA as well as other hazard-sensitive regions.

Most of these lessons are not new as they were highlighted

in other studies (Glantz 2000; Hellmuth et al. 2007; Glantz

and Baudoin 2014). Thus, what we often call a ‘‘lesson

learned’’ is truly not yet a lesson applied in practice.

• Being a catalyst, providing initial support to enhance

the position of relevant national/regional institutions in

a beneficiary country, is a key role for aid agencies: a

catalyst initiates transformation that ensures long-term

outcomes, even after funding for a project ends;

• Progress in forecasting technologies remains necessary,

but must target users’ needs: these needs must first be

assessed in order to be addressed;

• Language is a fundamental: user-friendly climate

products must be built with inputs from their end

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

123

users, using understandable terminology, and be dis-

seminated using appropriate media for large coverage;

• Capacity building is critical in DRR activities: it must

concern climate scientists, decision-making institu-

tions, and beneficiary communities;

• DRR is not a climate-centered activity: it is before all a

societal process, which needs to be considered as such

if climate products are to be useful to mitigate HM

risks; and

• Bridges must be built, among climate scientists, policy-

makers, and local communities to ensure collaboration

and feedback loops among these key actors.

Moreover, our conclusions suggest the need to build

bridges among the following field of activity: DRR, climate

change adaptation, and development. DRR is not a separate

field of activity from development issues, and both are

concerned with climate change and the risks of increased

HM hazards. Hence, those involved in these fields of ac-

tivity must develop partnerships instead of working as

separate units, sometimes within the same institution, with

a high risk of spending resources on similar activities or

even of leading to maladaptation and competition.

Acknowledgments This study is part of the research program:

‘‘Hydro-Meteorological Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate

Change: Lessons Learned for Resilient Adaptation to a Changing

Climate’’. It was made possible through the support of the Office of

US Foreign Disaster Assistance, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and

Humanitarian Assistance, US Agency for International Development.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect views of the US Agency for International

Development. The authors also wish to acknowledge with much ap-

preciation members of the following organizations who provided their

time, energy, and ideas: the IGAD Climate Prediction and Applica-

tions Centre (ICPAC in Nairobi), NOAA’s National Weather Service,

the University of Nairobi, the University of Colorado, the Kenya

Meteorological Department (KMD) and One Acre Fund NGO. In

addition, we give a special thanks to Peter and Ann Usher for their

support and warm welcome during the field investigations conducted

in Nairobi.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, dis-

tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original

author(s) and the source are credited.

References

Archer, E.R.M. 2003. Identifying underserved end-user groups in the

provision of climate information. Bulletin of the American

Meteorological Society 11(84): 1525–1532.

Bailey, R. 2013. Managing famine risk: Linking early warning to

early action. London: Chatham House.

Basher, R. 2006. Global early warning systems for natural hazards:

Systematic and people-centered. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society A 364: 2167–2182.

Baudoin, M.-A. 2012. Climate change adaptation in rural Africa: The

case of farmers’ communities in Southern Benin (Etude de

l’adaptation aux changements climatiques des populations

rurales africaines: le cas de communautes rurales agricoles au

sud du Benin). Brussels: Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

Baudoin, M.-A., A. Cuni-Sanchez, and B. Fandohan. 2014. Small

scale farmers’ vulnerability to climatic changes in southern

Benin: The importance of farmers’ perceptions of existing

institutions. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change 19(8): 1195–1207.

Buchanan-Smith, M., S. Davies, and C. Petty. 1994. Food security:

Let them eat information. IDS Bulleting 25(2): 69–80.

Campbell, D.J. 1999. Response to drought among farmers and herders

in southern Kajiado District, Kenya: A comparison of

1972–1976 and 1994-1995. Human Ecology 27(3): 377–416.

Clark, H. 2012. Building resilience: The importance of prioritizing

disaster risk reduction. Canterbury: UN Hopkins Lecture,

University of Canterbury, 15 August 2012.

Ferris, E., and D. Petz. 2012. The year that shook the rich: A review of

natural disasters in 2011. Washington: Brookings Institution,

London School of Economics.

Glantz, M.H., M. Betsill, and K. Crandall. 1997. Food security in

Southern Africa: Assessing the use and value of ENSO informa-

tion. Boulder: National Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Glantz, M.H. 2000. Reducing the impact of environmental emergen-

cies through early warning and preparedness: The case of the

1997–1998 El Nino. Lessons learned from the 1997–1998 El

Nino: Once burned, twice shy? Tokyo: United Nations Environ-

ment Programme, National Center for Atmospheric Research,

United Nations University, World Meteorological Organization,

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Glantz, M.H. 2004. Usable science 8: Early warning systems: Do’s

and dont’s. Darby: Diane Pub.

Glantz, M.H., and M.-A. Baudoin. 2014. Working with a changing

climate, not against it—Hydro-meteorological disaster risk

reduction: A survey of lessons learned for resilient adaptation

to a changing climate. Boulder: Consortium for Capacity

Building.

Hansen, J.W., S.J. Mason, L. Sun, and A. Tall. 2011. Review of

seasonal climate forecasting for agriculture in sub-Saharan

Africa. Experimental Agriculture 47(S2): 205–240.

Hellmuth, M.E., A. Moorhead, M.C. Thompson, and J. Williams

(eds.). 2007. Climate risk management in Africa: Learning from

practice. New York: Columbia University’s International Re-

search Institute for Climate and Society (IRI).

Holloway, A. 2003. Disaster risk reduction in Southern Africa.

African Security Review 12(1): 29–38.

Holloway, A., and R. Roomaney. 2008. Weathering the storm:

Participatory risk assessment for international settlements. Cape

Town: Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Program-

me (PeriPeri), University of Cape Town.

Holloway, A., F. Fortune, and V. Chasi. 2010. RADAR Western Cape

2010: Risk and development annual review. Cape Town:

Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme

(PeriPeri), University of Cape Town.

IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). n.d. http://www.

ifpri.org. Accessed 10 Feb 2015.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate

change 2007: The IPCC fourth assessment report. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Special

report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to

advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

IRI (International Research Institute for Climate and Society). 2001.

Regional climate prediction and risk reduction in the Greater

Horn of Africa. The IRI proposal to USAID/OFDA.

Baudoin and Wolde-Georgis. Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts in the Greater Horn of Africa

123

IRI (International Research Institute for Climate and Society). 2005.

Regional climate prediction and risk reduction in the Great Horn

of Africa. The IRI final report to USAID/OFDA.

Kelman, I., and M.H. Glantz. 2014. Early warning systems defined. In

Preventing disaster: Early warning systems for climate change,

ed. A. Singh, and Z. Zommers, 89–108. London: Springer.

Lallau, B. 2008. African farmers between vulnerability and resilience.

Promoting a capacity building approach for risk management

(Les agriculteurs africains entre vulnerabilite et resilience. Pour

une approche par les capacites de la gestion des risques). Revue

Francaise de socio economie 1: 177–198.

Ngugi, R.K., S.M. Mureihi, and P.N. Kamande. 2011. Climate

forecast information: The status, need and expectations among

smallholder agro-pastoralists in Machakos District, Kenya.

International Journal of Current Research 11(3): 6–12.

Nicholson, S.E. 2014. A detailed look at the recent drought situation

in the Greater Horn of Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 104:

71–79.

Ogallo, L., P. Bessemoulin, J.P. Ceron, S. Mason, and S. Connor.

2008. Adapting to climate variability and change: The climate

outlook forum process. WMO Bulletin 57(2): 93–102.

Reliefweb. n.d. http://www.reliefweb.int. Accessed 17 Feb 2015.

Shah, P., C.I. Speranza, R. Opiyo, and J. Ngaina. 2012. Options for

improving the communication of seasonal rainfall forecasts to

smallholder farmers: The case of Kenya. Bonn: German

Development Institute/Deutsches Institut fur Entwicklungspoli-

tik (DIE).

Speranza, C.I., B. Kiteme, P. Ambenje, U. Wiesmann, and S. Makali.

2009. Indigenous knowledge related to climate variability and

change: Insights from droughts in semi-arid areas of former

Makueni District, Kenya. Climate Change 100(2): 295–315.

Stern, N. 2007. Stern review on the economics of climate change.

Cambridge: Cabinet Office & HM Treasury, Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa). 2011.

Vulnerability and climate change hotspots in Africa—Mapping

based on existing knowledge. Working paper 2. Addis Ababa:

African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC).

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduc-

tion). 2012. Disaster reduction in Africa: UNISDR informs—

Special issue on drought risk reduction 2012. Geneva: UNISDR

Informs.

USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2012.

Building resilience to recurrent crisis: USAID policy and

program guidance. Washington: USAID Publication.

Vermaak, J., and D. van Niekerk. 2004. Disaster risk reduction

initiatives in South Africa. Development Southern Africa 21(3):

555–574.

Wolde-Georgis, T. 1997. El Nino and drought early warning in

Ethiopia. Internet Journal of African Studies No. 2. http://www.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589710. Accessed

17 Feb 2015.

World Bank. 2010. Report on the status of disaster risk reduction in

Sub-Saharan African. Washington: The World Bank and Global

Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR).

World Bank. 2012. Disaster risk financing and insurance in Sub-

Saharan Africa: Review and options for consideration. http://

www.preventionweb.net/go/31323. Accessed 11 Feb 2014.

World Bank. 2013. Turn down the heat: Climate extremes, regional

impacts and the case for resilience. A report for the World Bank

by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and

Climate Analytics. Washington.

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

123